Wildflower
new member
Reged: 05/10/05
Posts: 1
|
|
Does anyone know of shops in the midwest that are expert in fitting Calfees for tri geometry? Is this something that a person can do by working directly with Calfee or does one really need the assistance of an LBS or qualified fitting specialist? Finally, is Calfee particularly tuned in to tri geometry bikes or does the company really focus on road geometry bikes? (BTW - it's OK if Calfee is not fully tri-centric; tri is a small portion of the total bikes sold and requires special knowledge that may not be economical to acquire).
Thanks very much.
|
Bruce
contributor
Reged: 12/27/03
Posts: 133
Loc: North of NYC
|
|
Look at the Calfee web site and find a dealer close to you, then ask on this forum if anyone has had any experience with them.
I would highly suggest you get properly fitted for the best performance. You can't do that yourself, and for the money you will spend on a Calfee, it is worth the little extra a good shop will charge to get the bike fit just right.
As far as Tri vs. road style bikes, it has been my experience that tri people know next to nothing about cycling. What you want is a time trial bike. Forget about Tri vs Road. Any good roadie will leave a tri guy gasping in the first few minutes on a ride.
Get a good time trial bike and forget what your tri friends tell you about cycling. Remember, most triatheletes know next to nothing about cycling, at least the ones I know, and I seem to run into quite a few. I have seen a lot of tri people get Kestrel frames. I have never been impressed by these bikes, but never discount what a good marketing company can do with a so so product.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Bruce wrote:
...it has been my experience that tri people know next to nothing about cycling.
...most triatheletes know next to nothing about cycling...
Lance Armstrong?
...I know a few roadies who know nothing about cycling too.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
Actually, Kestrel is made in Taiwan now and is a very nice bike. Super clean, inside and out (that is saying something).
I don't care for the stealth bomber angled look. But I rode one last summer and it was a very nice ride. It brings out the very best in CF, comfortable yet plenty stiff for efficient power transfer.
I don't see the need to put down every other bike which isn't made by Craig Calfee.
|
Bruce
contributor
Reged: 12/27/03
Posts: 133
Loc: North of NYC
|
|
There are a lot of great carbon bikes out there. I just have not been impressed by Kestrel for the price. It is an also ran IMHO.
And yes, some roadies know nothing about cycling. Tri's tend to know less than their level of fitness would suggest because most of them come from running, where they are fairly fit, so they can show up on a group ride and hang in for a while, but they have no bike handling skills and show up with equipment that shows them to be the novices they are. Bento boxes are a modern classic. Just put that stuff in your jersey and be done with it. That is why cycling jerseys have 3 pockets in the back. What, you don't have a three pocket jersey? Yeah, that t-shirt will work just fine. What of any use fits in those Bento boxes anyway, and have you ever seen anyone use one during a ride? Just extra weight to carry around.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Bruce wrote:
Bento boxes are a modern classic. Just put that stuff in your jersey and be done with it. That is why cycling jerseys have 3 pockets in the back.
LOL, Bento boxes; my personal peeve.
My riding buddy, Cat 2 roadie, got a new girlfriend coupla years ago. She was a newbie tri and had a Bento Box. She wanted to come along on some of our easier rides (which is fine) but we were adamant that the BB be removed. ...I think she understands now...
Second is the tri riders who insists on staying on their aero bars while in a paceline. ...nothing a good flick can't fix. ...not that I've ever done that.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
superunleaded
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 223
|
|
eyyyy. c'mon now Bruce. Leave those tri guys alone . 
Lon seems to be getting lonely lately. looking for the "old" guys 
The other guy who could a good color on these boards is that guy Kevan.
How are you guys doing?
I took out the old Spectrum today and it was a blast riding it after so many saddle time wiht the TVT ss and the new fixie I've built which is an old Sentinel Whisper. A lot of rust on it and I'm too lazy to put any time for a paint job. I think I'll just leave it as it is.
--------------------
***Regular Unleaded - 4.99
***Special Unleaded - 7.99
***Superunleaded - Arm & a Leg
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
What is a Bento Box? 
|
superunleaded
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 223
|
|
aye captain.
here is your bento box
http://www.rei.com/product/47919280.htm
--------------------
***Regular Unleaded - 4.99
***Special Unleaded - 7.99
***Superunleaded - Arm & a Leg
|
flythebike
captain
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 272
Loc: N. Virginia, USA
|
|
Insert blanket generalization here.
Rebut.
This looks hot, the carbon Cervelo Soloist: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=photos/2005/tech/news/may12/img_7105
I don't know if I'm going to sell my Calfee to get it, (not going to in fact) but da-mmm that must be fast and fun to ride. The fact that is a monocoque rules it out for me, as I can only afford one unobtanium bike, and what if it breaks? CSC has been riding soloists with Zipp 404s all spring, even in climbing races, because they're convinced that the aerodynamics save their riders energy while in the pack and give them an advantage when they hit the climbs. Judging from their superior results, they seem to have a point.
And for a TT bike, ah, this looks FAST
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=photos/2005/tech/news/may12/cervelo_p3_06
FYI evidently not all Cervelos are made in the land of carbon (Taiwan).
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
Quote:
flythebike wrote:FYI evidently not all Cervelos are made in the land of carbon (Taiwan).
If not there then where? In the industry it is stated that they do not use one manufacturer but rather put out bids for each batch of bikes. I had a friend building them in a shop for 6 months and he wasn't overly impressed with the consistency of their quality. The above could be one reason why. There are also rumors or more that they have had some "de-bond" which must be scary.
Although CSC ride stock bikes the level of care and quality given to their bikes is not the same. This isn't only true of Cervelo.
It would be interesting to find a list of all the factories they have used for both aluminum and carbon.
Word is Giant is making the new carbon C-Dale.
|
Allan
journeyman
Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 198
Loc: Bds,W I
|
|
Ok this i couldnt pass up, and you were caught napping on this one Lon, but hey we cant know everything, bento boxes included.
On the topic of tri riders, most of the ones i know have this really strange habit of thinking they can just put a bike on a monster gear and ride the flats. Ok so i cant blame them for trying to be adventurious, but then they approach an incline, and they reach for the lowest ratio they can find in the gears to use for the climb, talk about rubber legs.
--------------------
Its time to ride.
|
Allan
journeyman
Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 198
Loc: Bds,W I
|
|
I've come to an almost live and direct decision about glued 'anything' on a bike frame, just give me welding, it might break eventually, but it certainly cant just "debond".
--------------------
Its time to ride.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Allan wrote:
I've come to an almost live and direct decision about glued 'anything' on a bike frame, just give me welding, it might break eventually, but it certainly cant just "debond".
Failure is a failure whether it's glued, welded, bolted or held together with chewing gum and duct tape.
I work in medical device. Our product has welds and glue joints. All are tested and failure of any joint below specified parameters is unacceptable. People will be hurt big time. A connection to a bicycle, if properly designed, shouldn't make any difference from a failure point of view. It may make a difference in manufacturing costs which will directly affect the buyer. ...glueing is usually cheaper.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Lon wrote:
Although CSC ride stock bikes the level of care and quality given to their bikes is not the same. This isn't only true of Cervelo.
Sounds like a Trek. Yeah, the racers race on "stock" frames, but I'm pretty sure those frames aren't just "yanked" out of the warehouse. No proof, but I believe each frame the Discovery/Postal racers used were hand built and picked from a given build lot. All the frames are equal, but some are more equal than others :-) I would imagine Cervelo and CSC have similar "arrangements".
Further more, I think Lance's frame is sized for him! The molds are then used to build frames for the public. They are very expensive after all, and Trek needs to recover their mold costs. Semantics, but think of it as "you are riding a frame designed for Armstrong rather than he is riding a frame for John Q Public".
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
Allan
journeyman
Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 198
Loc: Bds,W I
|
|
skuke i agree that a failure of a frame or part whether its bonded, welded or whatever is still a failure, however its a given that a glued bond has the ability to debond a lot easier compared to a weld.
This is why a lot of manufacturers of carbon items stress not to leave your carbon frame, carbon wheels or other glued carbon parts in areas of high heat such as in a locked parked vehicle in the midday sun.
I hardly think a welded frame will unweld if placed inside the vehicle with the same high temeratures.
--------------------
Its time to ride.
|
Allan
journeyman
Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 198
Loc: Bds,W I
|
|
This topic has been around so much that its as old as the hills, and i'll say it again regardless of who believes it. The pros do not ride just any frame from the production rack, its a selected hand picked frameset from a special build thats different, however still similiar looking to stock but yet DIFFERENT.
Theres just too much at stake in a major race to have a failure from a "run of the mill" production frameset.
skuke you said in your last post you think Lances frame is sized for him, id think you might be better off saying the frame is sized TO him.
--------------------
Its time to ride.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Allan wrote:
skuke you said in your last post you think Lances frame is sized for him, id think you might be better off saying the frame is sized TO him.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I believe Trek designed and built a custom frame FOR (not 'to') Lance Armstrong. Trek built a mold for that frame. Due to the cost of that mold, Trek now continues to use it to build more frames which is sold to the public. The marketing department now has the opportunity to legitimately claim that "You too" can ride the same frame as Lance!
Furthermore, I believe that the frame Armstrong uses is very carefully made in the above mold. I don't know the construction parameters, but I could imagine that extreme care is used in the orientation of the CF sheets, the correct mix of bonding agents are used, those epoxys (or whatever) is "fresh" from the epoxy factory and made absolutely as the chemist designed. The balloon bladder is inflated to exactly the correct pressure.... Every aspect of the construction of Armstrong's bike is done to the nominal design parameter. The bikes you and I can buy are made within the tolerances specified, but we can get a "made-on-a-Friday-afternoon-before-a-holiday" bike. Lance ain't getting one of those.
I think you and I are on the same page in this topic, Allen.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Allan wrote:
I hardly think a welded frame will unweld if placed inside the vehicle with the same high temeratures.
A 140+ degree car is certainly outside the normal operating parameters for a bicycle. So to claim that welding is stronger than bonding for that reason is not fair.
I could say that bonding is stronger because there is no heat affect zone and doesn't require re-heat treating after welding. If those issues are not addressed, you'll have a weak frame even if you could throw it into an 500° oven without failure.
My point is that a part only needs to be as strong as neccessary to accomplish it's designed intent. So if bonding does the job, great. If it fails too often prematurely, well, maybe it needs to be redesigned. But I don't think you can make blanket statements that welding is better than bonding.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
You guys crack me up. Everyone knows that US Postal/Discovery ride aluminum bikes. Look real close and you can see the toothpaste welds. At least I heard that somewhere...from a reliable source, I think.
Skuke, seriously, if there is a LA bike, and Trek "wants to recover the costs of the molds, then why don't they sell it? When I check their website they only sell CF frames in 2 cm increments. Not only that, when I compare my 1997 catalog (pre-LA) to today's catalog, they still only offer the same exact sizes. Same ST lengths. Same TT lengths. Same angles. What am I missing?
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
So much was said it is hard to keep up...
Allan you mixed my post up I did not say anything about Tri riders. My comments were all bike related.
Back to bikes...it is well known within industry circles and Trek Dealers that the first mold is made for Lance and that then is their 58? or whatever "his is." They then size the rest in relation to his sizing. I've heard it said more than once that Trek sizing is a little different when you fit people. Either way they sure are going to make sure it fits Lance to a "T." He has sold a heck of a lot of bikes for them. A special mold is completely out of the question they cost way too much.
Now to builds for pros...I have a Cannondale that was a pro build. At the time (and it still could be true) the build was called a factory walk through. They put their best people on it to begin with and then management types and quality people carefully inspect every step of the build. It only makes sense that a bike put under the stress of a pro rider and the exposure if it fails would be very carefully built.
The bonding vs. weld comments...personal decision and choice. I figure I'll debond before my Calfee!
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
You guys crack me up. Everyone knows that US Postal/Discovery ride aluminum bikes. Look real close and you can see the toothpaste welds. At least I heard that somewhere...from a reliable source, I think.
Sorta like the Huffy bikes (made by Serrota) riden by the 1984 US Olympic team? Re-badging is not uncommon. Remember, Lemond rode a re-badged Calfee (Carbon Frames) in TDF.
The reality is that they could be on the WalMart special of the week and still kick most of our colletive butts. :-)
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
Skuke, seriously, if there is a LA bike, and Trek "wants to recover the costs of the molds, then why don't they sell it? When I check their website they only sell CF frames in 2 cm increments. Not only that, when I compare my 1997 catalog (pre-LA) to today's catalog, they still only offer the same exact sizes. Same ST lengths. Same TT lengths. Same angles. What am I missing?
Sell the mold? or sell the bikes made from LA's mold?
I think you can see the various reasons why selling the mold would be out of the question.
If I was not clear (again), I think they DO sell the bikes made from LA's mold (thus recovering costs). It would be cost prohibitive to make a mold for LA, create 10 bikes (or whatever) for him then shelve the mold. Fortunately, LA is about a regular size guy and "his" frame only needs to be tweaked. As Lon suggests, the other frames are then based on his 58cm frame sized for consistency.
In 1997, Trek would not have made a custom mold and frame for a "has been" racer with cancer. LA raced what he was given. He might have kicked butt with the Wal Mart special.
Again, I have no proof for any of this. But it certainly sounds more than reasonable to me for a company to do these things when so much is at stake.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
Pintsized
journeyman
Reged: 02/27/05
Posts: 90
Loc: Corvallis OR
|
|
Why are you so sure it would not be worth it to Trek (since 99 or so) to make an LA only bike mold and make 10 or 20 bikes with it? I should think the budget for a pro team, esp. one with the success USPS had since 99, would accomodate such a thing.
|
Pintsized
journeyman
Reged: 02/27/05
Posts: 90
Loc: Corvallis OR
|
|
Oh, well, I mean a successful international pro team like USPS could have the budget for this. I wouldn't expect any pro team to be able to handle it, and certainly not many of the domestic teams.
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
The team doesn't pay for it the sponsor (Trek) does. A mold runs into 6 figures. Ask any Trek dealer that is an honest friend...building the first mold to Lance is common knowledge. As stated he is a fairly common size with tweaks.
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
Skuke, you missed my point. If there is a LA bike in a 58 cm, why do the current frame measurements not reflect any differences between now and 1997? No doubt, they use dfferent tubing now than they did in 1997. The other difference betweeen then and now is the threadless steerer. Of course, those changes apply to the entire line-up. But according to the geos posted on their site today compared to the geos in my 1997 catalog, they haven't changed a thing. Even in the size 58.
Good theory, but if you have some solid information (not just an educated guess) I'd be curious to learn about it.
Lon, I'm sure your Trek buddies want to sell something special but I remain forever the skeptic.
Help me out guys...facts.
|
Allan
journeyman
Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 198
Loc: Bds,W I
|
|
Just as a matter of interest, somethings amiss at the Trek site with geometry so take a look and confirm what i notice.
If you check the geometry chart for the 2300 and 2100 models, its supposed to be the same length for both bikes with their chainstay length, yet a look at the two photos of these bikes shows the rear tyre definately a lot closer to the seat tube on the 2100 model.
If this is the case here with this model then its easy for them to tweak the 'other' frames too, so whats happened to the geometry data.
--------------------
Its time to ride.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
Pintsized wrote:
Why are you so sure it would not be worth it to Trek (since 99 or so) to make an LA only bike mold and make 10 or 20 bikes with it? I should think the budget for a pro team, esp. one with the success USPS had since 99, would accomodate such a thing.
Let me flip your question. Why wouldn't Trek use LA's mold (since it's already made) to make more bikes for the public?
But to answer you, I don't think it's good business. Lon thinks the molds cost >six figures. I don't believe they're that high. I'd guess from design to making the first frame might be $100k max. probably closer to the $65k-75k range. I guess this because I designed and machined molds for 7 years. I have a reasonable idea of what is involved. However, I have absolutely no idea what a Trek mold entails but can only take an educated/experienced guess.
So if the mold and related expenses cost $75k and they made 10 frames for LA, do the math. They then still need to make another <$75k mold in a size 58cm for the public if they didn't use LA's size mold. You need to sell a lot of frames to make any money at that rate. Remember there are still expenses besides the mold cost to build a frame. ...Trek is making a lot of money though. :-)
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
Skuke, you missed my point. If there is a LA bike in a 58 cm, why do the current frame measurements not reflect any differences between now and 1997? No doubt, they use dfferent tubing now than they did in 1997. The other difference betweeen then and now is the threadless steerer. Of course, those changes apply to the entire line-up. But according to the geos posted on their site today compared to the geos in my 1997 catalog, they haven't changed a thing. Even in the size 58.
Good theory, but if you have some solid information (not just an educated guess) I'd be curious to learn about it.
Lon, I'm sure your Trek buddies want to sell something special but I remain forever the skeptic.
Help me out guys...facts.
Again, I have no facts. Only opinions.
But this may be a reasonable explanation for the apparent lack of difference in frame geometry: Marketing and propriatary information.
Let's say the seat tube angle is 73°. That is the nominal number published on the web and brochures. The bike actually has a seat tube angle of 73° +/- .5°. It could be 72.5°-73.5° and be in specification. So, LA prefers 72.5° on his bikes. Trek builds them that way. Perhaps in 1997, they built them 73.5°. The two seat tube angles could still be called 73° with no apparent change to the consumer. When in fact, there was a 1° change. Continue this numbers game through out the bike.
How do they measure their tube lengths today? Was it different in 1997? Calfee measures seat tube lengths to the top of the seatpost binder collar. IMHO, that is a stupid way to measure! If I change the binder to a thicker one, did my seat tube lengthen? As a matter of fact, I have machined my own binder collar so does that mean my bike is now a different size? Not. Anyhow, if Trek measures to funky points (virtual top tube lengths due to sloping TT), who knows what published numbers are real.
Also, bike handling and comfort is much more than tube lengths and angles as you're aware. Change the angle of the carbon sheets. Make it thicker/thinner here and there. etc.
Why do you believe the web/brochure is 100% accurate? Trek probably wouldn't outright lie, but to "play" with the numbers make marketing easier and intellectual property theft more difficult.
LOL, there may be some Trek engineer reading this thread laughing his ass off!
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
IMOHO this thread has gone way off-topic. This conversation about what Trek does or doesn't do isn't what this topic started out with. I suggest those who have a beef about Trek take it into a different thread. 
|
vaxn8r
contributor
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 222
|
|
Quote:
skuke wrote:
Again, I have no facts. Only opinions.
But this may be a reasonable explanation for the apparent lack of difference in frame geometry: Marketing and propriatary information.
Let's say the seat tube angle is 73°. That is the nominal number published on the web and brochures. The bike actually has a seat tube angle of 73° +/- .5°. It could be 72.5°-73.5° and be in specification. So, LA prefers 72.5° on his bikes. Trek builds them that way. Perhaps in 1997, they built them 73.5°. The two seat tube angles could still be called 73° with no apparent change to the consumer. When in fact, there was a 1° change. Continue this numbers game through out the bike.
How do they measure their tube lengths today? Was it different in 1997? Calfee measures seat tube lengths to the top of the seatpost binder collar. IMHO, that is a stupid way to measure! If I change the binder to a thicker one, did my seat tube lengthen? As a matter of fact, I have machined my own binder collar so does that mean my bike is now a different size? Not. Anyhow, if Trek measures to funky points (virtual top tube lengths due to sloping TT), who knows what published numbers are real.
Also, bike handling and comfort is much more than tube lengths and angles as you're aware. Change the angle of the carbon sheets. Make it thicker/thinner here and there. etc.
Why do you believe the web/brochure is 100% accurate? Trek probably wouldn't outright lie, but to "play" with the numbers make marketing easier and intellectual property theft more difficult.
LOL, there may be some Trek engineer reading this thread laughing his ass off!
No, I don't think the 97 and 2000+ bikes are the same. The carbon tubesets are different. But according to you, they have changed the 58 cm. bike to a LA model, while leaving the rest of the lineup unchanged. Don't you think they'd want to market a LA bike? Why would they possibly want to go to all that trouble and then pass it off as just another 58cm?
I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. I just don't get why they'd go to all the expense and trouble to do it, but then only let their engineer's close friends in on it, so they could spread the word on internet forums.??? That's an awfully weird way to promote a bike ridden by one of the top 5 racers of all time.
|
skuke
captain
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 321
|
|
Quote:
vaxn8r wrote:
But according to you, they have changed the 58 cm. bike to a LA model, while leaving the rest of the lineup unchanged.
I never said, or meant to imply that the rest of the lineup is unchanged.
Quote:
Don't you think they'd want to market a LA bike?
They do! "You can buy the same bike the team rides" "Not just graphics, but the actual 'off the shelf' frame" ...words to that effect.
Quote:
I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. I just don't get why they'd go to all the expense and trouble to do it, but then only let their engineer's close friends in on it, so they could spread the word on internet forums.???
I don't believe in conspiracies either. But ok, I concede. Trek designs a bike and Lance gets paid to ride it. Regardless if the 58cm Trek made fits him perfectly or whether or not he likes it.
"Dang it Lance, I'm paying you a boatload of money to ride the bike!" "Just do it!" ...wait, that's the other sponsor, sorry.
--------------------
Skuke
95 Carbonframes Tetra Pro
92 Bridgestone MB-1
90 Moser 51.151
|
BikerDoug
friend
Reged: 12/29/03
Posts: 88
|
|
It seems sponsors are getting more touchy on the subject of their sponsored pros riding re-badged stuff. With all the custom shapes and such it's much harder to fool everyone.
Didn't Rebellin ride a Scott during his triple wins last year? And I think Hamilton was on a painted Parlee when he placed second in the Giro.
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
Tri geometry Calfees
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: Tri geometry Calfees
Re: Tri geometry Calfees
Bento Box
Cervelo
Wow A Lively Discussion!